Re: models of mother-child communication

Judy Diamondstone (diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu)
Wed, 31 Jan 1996 16:44:29 -0500

Eugene, it may be that members of my community of reference do not conform to
your model of "middle class parent," and they may indeed trouble the ecology
of the middle class you refer to. That doesn't mean that they necessarily
invite their 8-year olds into their beds (the one friend I know who,
influenced by Oaxacan practices, did do that, eventually stopped, when
for reasons you _allude_ to -- her child showed signs of some confusion).
But it does mean that most parents I know can and often do take some
ironic distance from the nurturing behaviors they engage and delight in.
They take a double stance, as loving parents and as critics of their own
cultural practices. In fact, I can hardly imagine taking a stance that
isn't in some way(s) "doubled".

I wonder if I fully understand what motivated your message, though.
Judy ?-)

At 12:21 PM 1/31/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Hello everybody--
>
>Judy wrote on 1/29/96
>>Eugene, it's also possible for a mother to be an activity theorist,
>>to be aware of the "as if" status of her infant's "understanding" - of
>>the discrepancy between her own and her infant's understanding - and
>>to respond to baby's cues "as if" they made sense within a "shared" social
>>context that the baby can not yet interpret on her own, without believing
>>or even wanting to believe that the baby "really" understands.
>
>I think this is both a very interesting and risky proposition. If taken
>seriously by the mother it can destroy all mother's basic skills of a
>traditional middle-class parenting. For example, Barbara Rogoff teaches
>undergraduate class on Children and Cultures. She explains in much details
>how children in many cultures sleep together with parents and what are
>benefits of that in the context and ecology of these societies. But she
>does not sleep with her own children. Middle class parents learn how to
>sleep alone and do not learn how to sleep with babies. Not careful move in
>sleep can harm or even kill the baby.
>
>There are many things of doing things but those ways based on history of
>socialization in them. Focusing just on technology and benefits of how
>people do what can overlook ecology and history of socialization in these
>diverse ways of doing things. I'm not saying that experimentation or
>innovation is a bad thing, I just warn that it is risky business and should
>be approached carefully with full expectation of unavoidable (and even
>desired) breakdown of your mastery of doing things -- the only mastery that
>you know and socialize in.
>
>Another question will be how much your experimental "voluntarism" will be
>supported and tolerated by your ecology and environment. By breaking
>practice you can break your own ecology and even safety net.
>
>Let me finish on this conservative note :-)
>
>Eugene Matusov
>UC Santa Cruz
>
>------------------------
>Eugene Matusov
>UC Santa Cruz
>
>
>
Judy Diamondstone
diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu
Rutgers University

.................................................
Eternity is in love with the productions of time. -- Wm. Blake